/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081009.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 201
Headlines
AB&C GROUP: Ex-Workers' Suit Allowed to Proceed as Class Action
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 10/22 Dismissal Hearing Set for Buyout Suit
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Decides on Motion to Dismiss iPhone Suit
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Conn.
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS: Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Still Pending
BIOMET INC: Reaches Definitive Settlement in LVB Deal Lawsuit
BIOMET INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Orthopedic Implant Suits in Ind.
BURGER KING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Cowley" Lawsuit
GT SOLAR: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in New Hampshire
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement Becomes Final
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Court Allows Amended Complaint Filing
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Vishay Offer
MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: New York Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
NEW SOUTH WALES: Residents to Sue Over Devaluation of Property
NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in New York
SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Lawsuit in N.Y.
SARA LEE: Court Considers Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
SYNCOR INT'L: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $15.5M
SYNERON INC: Parties Agree to Stay Proceedings in "Weitzner"
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.M.
U.S. LENDERS: Sued Over Alleged Predatory Lending Practices
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholders' Class Lawsuit in Israel
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Fla. Court Mulls Motions in Workers' Lawsuit
*********
AB&C GROUP: Ex-Workers' Suit Allowed to Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judge Christopher Wilkes ruled that a lawsuit
filed by former AB&C Group Inc. workers against the company
could proceed as class action, David Hammer, Esq., told The
Martinsburg Journal.
According to the Martinsburg Journal, Judge Wilkes' Sept. 30
ruling is good news for former AB&C employees, both those who
were terminated in March 2008 and others who worked at the
Ranson facility during the last five years but were not paid
their full wages.
The report relates that Judge Wilkes also ordered a jury trial
on the matter for Dec. 1, 2009.
"This is a huge step forward because it means the entire group
of people who were not paid all of their wages, both at closure
and for the Ranson facility (where people may have been forced
to work 'off the clock') can all now proceed against the
corporate defendants who we think are responsible for not paying
them," Mr. Hammer said.
The report notes that Judge Wilkes defined workers to be
included in the suit as those who "were not timely paid all of
their accrued regular, straight wages," were not paid all of
their accrued fringe benefits, "had wages withheld that were not
delivered to authorized recipients," and were not paid
"preliminary work time in violation of the Wage Payment and
Collection Act."
As a result, the suit will now include the approximately 400
employees who unexpectedly lost their jobs on March 14 and did
not receive all of the pay due to them at that time, Mr. Hammer
said. However, it will also include other AB&C employees who
worked at the Ranson facility that also have pay issues, he
added.
Mr. Hammer explained that those individuals' concerns were
uncovered as he and fellow attorneys Garry Geffert, Esq., and
Robert Schiavoni, Esq., began working on the case and
interviewing workers who were terminated in March.
"Now there's this other, larger group of people who worked at
Ranson over the past five years and weren't paid for the 15
minutes of preliminary work time that they worked prior to
beginning to taking phone calls," Mr. Hammer said. Under West
Virginia law and a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, workers must be
paid for all of the time they spend working, he pointed out.
"AB&C required people at Ranson to begin doing productive work,
actually getting into their computer system and begin getting
ready to accept phone calls, 15 minutes before the start of
their shifts -- although they didn't pay them for that time,"
Mr. Hammer further explained. "[That's a] straight up violation
of the law. That's illegal and they have to pay for that."
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 10/22 Dismissal Hearing Set for Buyout Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 22, 2008 hearing will be held in connection with a
motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed against
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., over the attempted buyout of
the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital
Management LP.
Initially, several lawsuits were filed. In general, the suits
allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are
seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5,
2008). The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS
stockholders bringing a class action on behalf of all of the
company's public stockholders.
Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the
company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire
the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders
because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to
be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process.
According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court:
1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
filed on March 20, 2007.
2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
March 21, 2007.
3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on
March 22, 2007.
4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A.
Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007.
5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on
April 20, 2007.
6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007.
On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated
into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption
"In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."
Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.
On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and
derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors.
The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified
monetary damages sustained by the company.
On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class
and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all
individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and
abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup.
On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their
respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to
dismiss is complete and will be heard on Oct. 22, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008.
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Decides on Motion to Dismiss iPhone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ruled on a motion seeking the dismissal of claims asserted in a
class action lawsuit filed against Apple, Inc., MacNN reports.
Filed on Oct. 5, 2007, the suit accuses the company of
conspiring with AT&T Mobility, LLC, to restrain commerce and
injure consumers. According to the Class Action Reporter on
Oct. 12, 2007, the suit arises out of the defendants' alleged
unlawful acts which were designed for the express purpose, and
had the effect of, improperly interfering with the rights of
consumers to freely and lawfully use the product they purchased
and paid for.
Named plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello claim that both
companies conspired to restrain commerce and injure consumers by
making it impossible to run programs on iPhones unless users buy
them directly from Apple, and of forcing customers to use AT&T
cell phone and mobile data services.
The iPhone has "security measures" that illegally restrain
trade, the complaint states. Apple has illegally threatened to
void the warranties of customers who figure out how to install
third-party programs, it says.
Apple and AT&T are accused of "taking affirmative steps to break
the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card
or who installed Third Party Apps." And the suit accuses AT&T
of modifying its iPhone software after the phones went on sale
to ensure that it could break customers' phones at will.
The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all individuals or
entities who, at any time from June 29, 2007, to the date of
judgment in this action, bought and implemented the iPhone and
sustained damages as a result.
Recently, the court rejected Apple's motion to dismiss monopoly
claims that have been asserted against it in connection with the
issues regarding iPhone, MacNN relates, citing an InternetNews
report.
According to MacNN, the court denied Apple's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' Sherman Act, computer trespass, computer fraud,
and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. However, the company
successfully pushed to have the unfair and deceptive trade
practices claims dismissed, although there is still room for
amendment.
The suit is "Paul Holman, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al., Case
No. C07 05152," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Alexander Schmidt, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-545-4600
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Biosystems, Inc., formerly Applera Corp., and some of
its officers are still facing a securities fraud class-action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000.
In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.
The case was commenced with the filing of several complaints in
April and May 2000. An amended consolidated complaint was filed
on Aug. 21, 2001.
The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide
patent protection to the company's genomic-based products.
Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended
to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the
complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately
disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be
able to patent this data.
The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission,
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper.
On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class
action.
The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
Applied Biosystems Inc. -- http://www.appliedbiosystems.com/--
is engaged in the development and marketing of instrument-based
systems, consumables, software, and services for academic
research, the life science industry and commercial markets. It
commercializes technology solutions for deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA), protein, and small molecule
analysis. The Applied Biosystems business is focused on basic
research, commercial research (pharmaceutical and biotechnology)
and standardized testing, including forensic human
identification, paternity testing and food testing markets. The
company has an installed base of approximately 180,000
instrument systems in nearly 100 countries. On May 8, 2008, the
company entered into a separation agreement with Celera Corp.,
at that time one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, to separate
all of the business, assets and liabilities of the Celera group
from its remaining business. On July 1, 2008, this separation
was completed.
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS: Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Biosystems Inc., formerly Applera Corp., and Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc., are still facing a certified class-action lawsuit
filed by Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia over alleged
anticompetitive practices.
Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against the defendants
on Sept. 23, 2004.
The complaint, as amended in July 2006, alleges anticompetitive
conduct in connection with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The
anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the prosecution
and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818.
The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom Applera
has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, the
patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses,
injunctive relief, and other relief, as the court deems proper.
On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class-action
lawsuit.
The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Henry H.
Kennedy, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Paul Thomas Gallagher, Esq. (pgallagher@cmht.com)
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005-3934
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
- and -
Scott E. Gant, Esq. (sgant@bsfllp.com)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: 202-237-2727
Representing the defendants are:
Joanne M. Guerrera, Esq. (joanne.guerrera@weil.com)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-682-7153
Fax: 202-857-0939
- and -
Heather Holden Brooks, Esq. (holden_brooks@aporter.com)
Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206
Phone: 202-942-6309
Fax: 202-942-5999
BIOMET INC: Reaches Definitive Settlement in LVB Deal Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Biomet, Inc., reached a definitive settlement deal in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Biomet's
shareholders following the announcement of the merger between
Biomet, LVB Acquisition LLC, and LVB Acquisition Merger Sub,
Inc.
On Dec. 20, 2006, a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Long, et al. v. Hann, et al.," was filed in Indiana State court
in the County of Kosciusko. The lawsuit names as defendants
each member of the Biomet board of directors at the time, Dane
Miller, Ph.D., Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P., KKR 2006 Fund
L.P., Goldman Sachs Investments Ltd. and TPG Partners V, L.P.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached, or aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties
owed to Biomet shareholders by Biomet's directors in connection
with, among other things, Biomet's entry into the merger
agreement.
The complaint seeks, among other relief:
-- class certification of the lawsuit;
-- a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into
in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants;
-- an injunction preventing the defendants from proceeding
with the merger unless and until the defendants
implement procedures to obtain the highest possible sale
price;
-- an order directing the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the
best interests of Biomet’s shareholders until the
process for a sale of Biomet is completed and the
highest price is obtained;
-- an order directing the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duty to disclose all material information in
their possession concerning the merger prior to the
shareholder vote, including Biomet’s fiscal year 2007
second quarter financial results;
-- imposition of a constructive trust upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants;
-- an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.
On March 29 and 30, 2007, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, and these motions are
currently pending before the court.
On Jan. 2, 2007, a purported class-action suit, "Gervasio v.
Biomet, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Supreme Court for the
State of New York, New York County. A virtually identical
action was also filed on Jan. 9, 2007, captioned, "Corry v.
Biomet, Inc., et al.," in the same court.
Both of these lawsuits named as defendants Biomet, each member
of its board of directors at the time, Dane Miller, Ph.D., The
Blackstone Group L.P., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Goldman
Sachs Capital Partners and Texas Pacific Group. The lawsuits
made essentially the same claims and sought the same relief as
in the Long action described above.
On Jan. 29, 2007, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
"Gervasio." On Feb. 14, 2007, the plaintiff in "Corry"
voluntarily discontinued his lawsuit and informed the defendants
that he intended to intervene in "Gervasio." On March 26, 2007,
the court granted defendants' motion and nixed the "Gervasio"
case.
Each of Biomet and the other defendants denies all of the
allegations in the lawsuits, including any allegation that its
current disclosures with regard to the pending merger are false,
misleading or incomplete in any way.
Nevertheless, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
Biomet and the other defendants in the cases have agreed in
principle to settle them in order to avoid the potential cost
and distraction of continued litigation and to eliminate any
risk of any delay to the closing of the merger posed by these
lawsuits.
On May 31, 2007, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding the settlement of class-action lawsuits
that were filed on behalf of the company's shareholders
following the announcement of the proposed Merger. The parties
to the memorandum of understanding executed a definitive
settlement agreement dated as of April 17, 2008, according to
the company's Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2008.
Biomet, Inc. -- http://www.biomet.com/-- is a maker of medical
devices that include reconstructive products (hips, knees, and
shoulders), fixation devices (bone screws and pins), orthopedic
support devices, dental implants, and operating-room supplies.
Through its EBI subsidiary, the firm also sells electrical bone-
growth stimulators and external devices, which are attached to
bone and protrude from the skin. Subsidiary Biomet
Microfixation markets implants and bone substitute material for
craniomaxillofacial surgery. In 2007, Biomet was acquired by a
group of private equity firms for more than $11 billion.
BIOMET INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Orthopedic Implant Suits in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several lawsuits consolidated under the
caption "In Re Orthopedic Implant Device Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-ml-9831-JDT-WTL," which names as a defendant
Biomet, Inc., have voluntarily dismissed their cases.
The company has received complaints in class-action lawsuits
alleging possible violations of the antitrust laws, relating to
the manufacture and sale of orthopedic implant devices.
The suits also named various other companies in the orthopedic
industry as defendants. These cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In Re Orthopedic Implant Device Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-ml-9831-JDT-WTL" in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana. On Oct. 18, 2007, the cases
were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, according to the
company's Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2008.
Biomet, Inc. -- http://www.biomet.com/-- is a maker of medical
devices that include reconstructive products (hips, knees, and
shoulders), fixation devices (bone screws and pins), orthopedic
support devices, dental implants, and operating-room supplies.
Through its EBI subsidiary, the firm also sells electrical bone-
growth stimulators and external devices, which are attached to
bone and protrude from the skin. Subsidiary Biomet
Microfixation markets implants and bone substitute material for
craniomaxillofacial surgery. In 2007, Biomet was acquired by a
group of private equity firms for more than $11 billion.
BURGER KING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Cowley" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Cowley v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 07-21772," have
voluntarily dismissed the case, which names a unit of Burger
King Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, according to Burger King's
Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 20, 2008.
On July 10, 2007, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The case alleged liability under the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act or FACTA for failure to truncate credit and
debit card account numbers and omit the expiration date on
customer receipts.
In May 2008, Congress passed the FACTA Reform Act, which
provides that any company that printed the expiration date on
customer receipts prior to the effective date of the bill was
not in willful violation of FACTA so long as the company was
complying with FACTA's requirement of truncating the customer’s
credit card number at all times. Shortly after the bill was
enacted, the plaintiff offered to voluntarily dismiss the case
with prejudice, and the case was dismissed on May 28, 2008.
The suit is "Cowley v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 1:07-
cv-21772-FAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Judge Federico A. Moreno, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
John Elliott Leighton, Esq. (Leighton@Leesfield.com)
Leesfield Leighton & Partners
2350 S. Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305-854-4900
Fax: 305-854-8266
- and -
Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq. (jay@jaylevylaw.com)
Jay M. Levy, P.A.
9130 S Dadeland Boulevard
Suite 1510 Two Datran Center
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-670-8100
Fax: 305-670-4827
Representing the defendants is:
Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. (hurleyg@gtlaw.com)
Greenberg Traurig PA
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-732-6500
Fax: 949-732-6501
- and -
Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq.
(msarelson@sarelson-shafir.com)
Sarelson + Shafir, LLP
1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 3053790305
GT SOLAR: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in New Hampshire
---------------------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International, Inc., is facing several purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, a series of putative securities
class-action suits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire over allegations that the company,
certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters and
others violated various sections of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
The complaints allege that the Registration Statement for the
company's July 2008 initial public offering contained material
misstatements and omissions regarding the company's business
relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's
customers. They seek unspecified compensatory damages plus
rescission, interest and attorneys' fees, according to the
company's Aug. 27, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.
GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is
provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic industry. The company's products
and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules. GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design
and integration know-how with its equipment. The company offers
its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a
worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are
to customers outside the U.S. Effective Jan. 1, 2006, GT Solar
Holdings, LLC, acquired the company.
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement Becomes Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
An order granting final approval to a settlement deal in the
matter entitled "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial
Group, Inc., et al.," was entered by the court after appeals
were exhausted.
In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of National Property Investors 5 commenced a
purported class action lawsuit entitled "Rosalie Nuanes, et al.
v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al.," before the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.
The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the National
Property (the Partnership), its managing general partner, NPI
Equity Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of Apartment Investment
and Management Co., and several of their affiliated partnerships
and corporate entities.
The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships that are named as nominal defendants,
challenging, among other things:
-- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing
General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group,
Inc., and entities that were, at one time, affiliates
of Insignia;
-- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to
acquire limited partnership units;
-- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
affiliates; and
-- the series of transactions which closed on Oct. 1,
1998, and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia
Property Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.
The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.
In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint
captioned "Heller v. Insignia Financial Group," was filed
against the same defendants that are named in "Nuanes." The
Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and
asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
judicial dissolution.
On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to strike the Heller complaint. The plaintiffs took an appeal
from this order.
On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
to resolve the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13,
2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller matters.
In August 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second
appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order
requiring objector to pay those fees.
In March 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and the judgment
entered, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order
and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the
basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit
meaningful appellate review."
The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.
With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees. With
respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.
On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and struck by the trial court.
The objector then filed a motion to intervene and later filed
both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of
plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to
dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.
On Nov. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further
Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
The defendants joined in that motion.
In February 2006, the Court ordered additional briefing from the
parties and the objector.
On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.
The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.
The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1,
2006, denying the objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, the objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction. Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.
On Aug. 31, 2006, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.
The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion on Feb. 20, 2008, affirming the order
approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto.
On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing.
The matter has been submitted and the parties are awaiting a
decision by the California Supreme Court regarding whether or
not it will accept the matter for review.
On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied the Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing. On May 21, 2008, the California
Supreme Court denied the Appellant's Petition for Review.
All appeals have now been exhausted, and the court's order
approving the settlement and entering judgment is now final.
Payments associated with the settlement have been disbursed
during September 2008, according to National Property Investors
5's Sept. 16, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 10, 2008.
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Court Allows Amended Complaint Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
International Rectifier Corp.
Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its
Audit Committee was conducting an internal investigation into
certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class-
action lawsuits was filed against International Rectifier Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Edward R. Koller filed the first complaint on April 17, 2007, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of IR stock from
Oct. 27, 2005, through April 9, 2007.
The complaint named as defendants IR and certain of its present
and former officers and directors and alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act based upon
revenue recognition errors at the company's Japan subsidiary.
On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the securities
actions under the caption, "In re International Rectifier
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx)
C.D. Cal.)," and appointed Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
and General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, as co-lead
plaintiffs.
The Co-Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Jan. 14, 2008, which purported to extend the Original Class
Period by nearly two years, from July 31, 2003, to Aug. 29,
2007, and added claims based upon the company's disclosures that
certain former officers improperly allocated operating expenses
as restructuring charges, improperly assigned tax liability from
higher to lower tax jurisdictions and improperly accounted for
tax benefits associated with the granting of stock options.
The lawsuit also named as defendants several of the company's
former officers, but did not name any of its past or present
directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow, who were officers as
well.
The company filed a motion to dismiss these claims on March 6,
2008, on the grounds that Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter
as to IR; failed to plead scienter as to the company; failed to
plead loss causation as to certain of those disclosures; failed
to plead an underlying violation of Section 10(b), which is a
predicate for a claim under Section 20(a); and improperly
expanded the class period without adequate notice. The Co-
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion.
On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground
that the Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient
to give rise to a strong inference of defendants' scienter. The
court has permitted Co-Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
on or before Oct. 17, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 28,
2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities an Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "In re International Rectifier Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com)
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
425 California Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-433-3200
- and -
Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-785-0800
Representing the defendants are:
Jacob I. Kiani, Esq. (jkiani@sheppardmullin.com)
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Phone: 213-620-1780
- and -
Jason DeBretteville, Esq.
(debrettevillej@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3308
Phone: 650-461-5682
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Vishay Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corp. is facing two purported class-
action suits shortly after the company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc., had made an unsolicited, non-binding
proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the company for
$21.22 per share in cash, according to the company's Aug. 21,
2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Aug. 15, 2008.
On Aug. 15, 2008, the first purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corp., No.
BC396461," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.
The complaint names as defendants the company and all current
directors and alleges that the Vishay proposal is unfair and
that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of
fiduciary duty. It seeks to enjoin the defendants from agreeing
to the Vishay proposal or, alternatively, to rescind a merger
with Vishay if it were ultimately consummated, as well as an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On Aug. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint, captioned
"United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local
Union No. 8 v. International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396490," was
filed in the same court.
This complaint names the same defendants and alleges that the
Vishay proposal is unfair and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition by failing to properly value the Company and by
failing to maximize its value through steps such as the
solicitation of alternate offers. The action likewise seeks to
enjoin defendants from agreeing to the Vishay proposal and a
declaration that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as
well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
International Rectifier Corp. -- http://www.irf.com/-- designs,
manufactures and markets power management semiconductors. Its
products include power metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect
transistors (MOSFETs), high-voltage analog and mixed signal
integrated circuits, low-voltage analog and mixed signal
integrated circuits, digital integrated circuits, radiation-
resistant (RAD-Hard) power MOSFETs, insulated gate bipolar
transistors, high reliability DC-DC converters, PowerStage
modules, and DC-DC converter type applications. The company's
semiconductors are found in a variety of applications, such as
automotive applications, networking, industrial motors, display,
consumer electronics, servers, personal computers, game
stations, household appliances, aerospace and defense, and
telecommunications. IR operates in seven segments: Enterprise
Power (EP), Power Management Devices (PMD), PS, Energy-Saving
Products (ESP), Aerospace and Defense (A&D), Intellectual
Property (IP) and Transition Services (TS).
MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: New York Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants a motion by Medis Technologies, Ltd., that sought the
dismissal of a securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending
against the company, according to the company's Aug. 20, 2008
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the period ended Aug. 19, 2008.
The suit was filed on April 23, 2007, against the company and,
among others, the company's chief executive officer. It alleged
that the company issued a false and misleading press release on
April 13, 2007, regarding sales of the company's "24/7" fuel
cell power packs to a major international company by overstating
the importance of those sales, which resulted in the company's
common stock being artificially inflated.
The suit sought relief under Rule 10b-5 against all the
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the company's chief executive
officer.
Thereafter, on Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the first
amended class action complaint, which essentially alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and
misleading press release on April 13, 2007, stating that the
company had begun "commercial sales" of "Microsoft-Branded"
Power Packs to Microsoft. The announcement is alleged to have
caused a temporary fluctuation in the stock price, causing the
stock to trade from $18.29 to as high as $24.10 per share before
closing at $20.32 per share.
The plaintiffs contend that the April 13 Press Release was
misleading because it failed to specifically state that the sale
to Microsoft was for a small quantity and that Microsoft
intended to use the Power Packs as give-aways. Moreover, the
plaintiffs state, the units were not Microsoft branded.
However, the April 13 Press Release explicitly conveyed the
landmark importance of the sale to the company and the fuel cell
industry, and the company has vigorously denied any allegations
of wrongdoing, standing by the truth of the April 13 Press
Release.
The plaintiffs' putative class includes those who "purchased the
common stock, call options, and/or sold put options of Medis for
the time period April 13, 2007 through April 17, 2007."
On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, arguing that the first amended complaint
failed as a matter of law because it did not allege "scienter,"
i.e., that the defendants acted with a culpable intent.
The defendants argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs
could not allege any reason why the defendants would seek to
temporarily inflate the company's stock price.
On August 19, 2008, the company issued a press release
announcing that Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, has granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the putative class-action lawsui, and ordered
the case to be closed.
The suit is "Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-03230-PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Phillip C. Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
New York, NY 10118
Phone: 212-686-1060
Fax: 212-202-3827
Representing the defendant is:
Deborah Hilarie Renner (drenner@sonnenschein.com)
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-768-6896
Fax: 212-768-6800
NEW SOUTH WALES: Residents to Sue Over Devaluation of Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
North South Wales residents will be pushing through with a plan
to file a lawsuit against the NSW Government over the
Metropolitan Strategy, Stacey Vanoska writes for South Western
Rural Advertiser.
According to the report, more than 100 residents in the South
West Growth Centre region will provide financial backing for the
lawsuit.
The report recounts that the residents have joined hands in
order to be reimbursed for the cost of their own community
consultation session about the Metropolitan Strategy and for the
devaluation of their properties.
Organizer Pat Thirup told Rural Advertiser that the residents
believe they have a strong case and will aim to be reimbursed
for costs incurred.
"People in the local area put up a large sum of money to bring
in the appropriate people to consult the community on the
Metropolitan Strategy," Ms. Thirup said. "We did the work
ourselves but it wasn't our responsibility, and we now hope to
get that money back from the State Government."
Ms. Thirup added that the residents from the South West and the
North West growth centers would join together in the planned
legal case against the NSW Government.
"Our other concern is that the Metropolitan Strategy should have
encouraged developers to buy into the area, but what has
happened is the opposite," she said. "One property has been on
the market for 18 months, with no takers. The devaluation of
our properties is something we also want to tackle."
NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
NexCen Brands, Inc., is facing several purported class-action
suits before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to the company's Aug. 21, 2008 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 15, 2008.
The company has been named in at least four related securities
class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's securities between May 10, 2008, and May 19, 2008.
The lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, allege violations of
securities laws.
The court is currently entertaining motions for appointment of
lead plaintiff and appointment of lead counsel. Once a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel is appointed, the company anticipates
that all of these cases will be consolidated and an amended
complaint will be filed.
NexCen Brands, Inc. -- http://www.nexcenbrands.com/-- is a
global brand management and franchising company. The company is
focused on managing, developing and acquiring intellectual
property (IP) and IP-centric businesses. It owns, licenses,
franchises and markets a portfolio of brands including Bill
Blass, Waverly, The Athlete's Foot, Shoebox New York, Great
American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab Creamery, Pretzel
Time and Pretzelmaker. It licenses and franchises these brands
to a network of retailers, manufacturers and franchisees that
includes segments of retail distribution from the luxury market
to the mass market in the U.S. and in over 50 countries around
the world. The company's franchise network consists of
approximately 1,900 retail stores. NexCen Brands operates in
three segments: Consumer Branded Products, Retail Franchising
and Quick Service Restaurant Franchising (QSR).
SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit, captioned
"Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
08718-RMB-THK," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Scores Holding Co.,
Inc., formerly Adonis Energy, Inc.
On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed the
purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of
all tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.
The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding
Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West
Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported
class-action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.
On or about Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second
amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but
limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores'
clubs. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants are
"an integrated enterprise" and that the company jointly employ
the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability
for the alleged wage/hour violations.
On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.
On behalf of Scores Holding and the other defendants, the
company filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint
that asserted state law class action allegations. The company
also moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs
for failure to appear for depositions.
At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification under the federal law for a class of the servers,
bartenders and dancers.
On May 9, 2008, the court issued its decision, denying the
motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a
class of servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers
who have worked at Scores East since October 2004.
The case is stayed as against Go West pursuant to the bankruptcy
law. The court directed that notice be sent to all potential
class members.
Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues of the
suit is ongoing, with a deadline of Dec. 31, 2008, for all
remaining discovery, according to the company's Aug. 19, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com)
Outten & Golden Law Firm
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-245-1000
Fax: 212-977-4005
Representing the defendants is:
Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com)
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: 212-801-9209
Fax: 212-805-9209
SARA LEE: Court Considers Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Sara Lee Corp.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege economic
loss causation because they did not indicate how the alleged
fraud caused their economic loss. The court noted that the
allegation that stock prices were inflated alone was
insufficient.
Initially, John Gallo, a purported company stockholder, filed
the putative class-action lawsuit on May 13, 2003, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the company common stock between and including
Aug. 1, 2002, and April 24, 2003.
The complaint named the company, C. Steven McMillan, former
chairman, president and chief executive officer of the company,
and Lambertus M. de Kool, executive vice president and chief
financial and administrative officer of the company, as
defendants.
The suit seeks, among other things, class action certification,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
costs and expenses, including counsel fees.
Seven other putative class-action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the
same defendants. The allegations in each of those complaints
are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the
first lawsuit.
Each of the foregoing actions was later consolidated in a single
proceeding captioned "In re Sara Lee Corp. Securities
Litigation."
THe consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs
contains similar allegations that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
misstating or omitting material adverse facts regarding the
company's business, operations, management and financial
statements, and the value of the company common stock, which
allegedly enabled the company to complete securities offerings,
enabled the individual defendants to increase their bonus
compensation and caused the purported class to purchase the
company common stock at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated amended complaint, however, omitted the previous
allegations that the individual defendants or other insiders
sold their personally held company stock to the public at
artificially inflated prices.
On March 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The motion was denied by the
court. On Oct. 19, 2005, the company filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings based on the plaintiffs' failure to
adequately plead loss causation. The motion was fully briefed
at the end of November 2005.
On July 10, 2006, the motion was granted and the case has been
dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege
and prove that the defendants' misrepresentations and other
fraudulent conduct proximately caused plaintiffs' economic
losses.
On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved for relief from final
judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated amended
complaint under Federal Rules 15(a), 59(e), and 60(b). Briefing
on plaintiffs' motion was completed on Oct. 13, 2006, and the
company is awaiting the court's ruling.
The company reported further development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008.
The suit is "In Re: Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-3202," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Hon. Charles R.
Norgle, Sr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY, 10119
Phone: 212-594-5300
Fax: 212-868-1229
e-mail: info@milbergweiss.com
Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, LLP
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-782-4880
Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
200 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-346-3100
- and -
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
3 Bala Plaza E
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 610-667-7706
Fax: 610-667-7056
e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
SYNCOR INT'L: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $15.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corp., an acquisition of Cardinal Health,
Inc., reached a $15.5-million settlement deal in a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Initially, several purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws. These suits
were all filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, where they were later consolidated into
a single proceeding referred to as "In re Syncor International
Corp. Securities Litigation."
The federal securities suits purport to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Syncor shares during various periods,
beginning as early as March 30, 2000, and ending as late as
Nov. 5, 2002.
The actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
Act by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international
business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Syncor shares.
Syncor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended for
the third time.
On April 15, 2005, the court granted the company's dismissal
motion with prejudice. The lead plaintiff has appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On June 12, 2007, the Ninth Circuit entered an order reversing,
in part, the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims and remanding the case to the District Court.
Specifically, the order reversed the dismissal of the claims
against Syncor and certain individual defendants, including its
former Chairman and CEO, and affirmed the dismissal of all other
defendants.
Syncor filed a petition for rehearing on June 26, 2007, which
petition was later denied. On Oct. 23, 2007, Syncor filed a
petition for rehearing en banc which was also denied.
The defendants subsequently entered into a memorandum of
understanding effective on June 27, 2008, to settle the Syncor
federal securities litigation for a payment of $15.5 million,
according to Cardinal Health's Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Richard Bowe, et al. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Lourdes G.
Baird, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
Provost Umphrey Law Firm
3232 McKinney Ave, Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: 214-744-3000
Web site: http://www.provostumphrey.com/
- and -
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
Shapiro Grace Haber & Urmy
75 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-439-3939
Representing the defendants are:
Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213-229-7000
- and -
Robert F. LeMoine, Esq.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
Phone: 213-687-5000
e-mail: lacefax@skadden.com
SYNERON INC: Parties Agree to Stay Proceedings in "Weitzner"
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Weitzner v. Syneron, Inc., Case No.
1:2005cv05299," which names a unit of Syneron Medical, Ltd., as
a defendant, have entered into a stipulation to 'hold appeal in
abeyance and stay briefing schedule' in the matter, according to
the company's Aug. 21, 2008 Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31,
2007.
The class-action lawsuit was filed on Nov. 10, 2005, against the
company's subsidiary, Syneron Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and attorneys fees and
costs as a result of the alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Syneron Inc. has answered the complaint and the parties have
engaged in discovery relating to the appropriateness of
proceeding with the action on behalf of a class, as well as
discovery on the merits of the claim.
On Feb. 7, 2007, Syneron filed a motion to dismiss the action
for lack of federal jurisdiction, and the court granted this
request. The plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the decision with the
U.S Court of Appeals for Second Circuit.
Due to pending appeals in two similar cases currently ongoing
before the Second Circuit, the company and the plaintiff
recently executed a "Stipulation to Hold Appeal in Abeyance and
Stay Briefing Schedule." Pursuant to the Stipulation, the
parties agreed that the appeal is withdrawn from active
consideration without prejudice and will leave to reactivate
pending a decision in the other pending cases.
The parties have agreed that:
-- in the event that the Second Circuit reverses the
decision in the other pending cases, the company will
consent to remand of the Weitzner case to the District
Court to proceed to trial; and
-- in the event that the Second Circuit affirms the
decision in the other cases, the plaintiff will
voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice.
The suit is "Weitzner v. Syneron, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05299-
ENV-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Todd C. Bank, Esq. (TBLaw101@aol.com)
Law Office of Todd C. Bank
119-40 Union Turnpike
Fourth Floor
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-520-7125
Representing the defendant is:
Glenn Charles Colton, Esq. (gcolton@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019-6033
Phone: 212-497-7759
Fax: 212-999-5899
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit is pending
against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico.
On Aug. 21, 2007, a securities class-action complaint, entitled
"Slater v. Thornburg, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.
Subsequently, three similar class action complaints were filed
in the Southern District of New York, and one more was filed in
the District of New Mexico.
All five complaints allege that the company and the other named
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements in financial reports filed with the SEC,
press releases and other public statements, which resulted in
artificially inflated market prices of the company's common
stock, and that the named plaintiff and members of the putative
class purchased common stock at these artificially inflated
market prices.
Two complaints allege a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005,
through Aug. 17, 2007, one alleges a class period running from
Oct. 6, 2005, through Aug. 20, 2007, and two more allege a class
period running from April 19, 2007, through Aug. 14, 2007. Each
complaint seeks unspecified money damages.
The five actions have been formally consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico, under the
caption, "In re Thornburg Mortgage Inc. Securities Litigation."
The purported class period as alleged in a consolidated amended
complaint runs from April 19, 2007, to March 19, 2008.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that all
defendants are liable under federal securities laws for
materially false and misleading statements in the registration
statements and prospectuses for the company's May 2007, June
2007, September 2007, and January 2008 securities offerings.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified money
damages in favor of the putative class of purchasers of the
company's securities, injunctive relief, restitution, the costs
and expenses of the action, and other relief that may be granted
by the court.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Slater v. Thornburg, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00815-JB-WDS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, Judge James O. Browning, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Richard A. Sandoval, Esq.
(rsandoval@branchlawfirm.com)
Branch Law Firm
2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87104
Phone: 505-243-3500
Fax: 505-243-3534
Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-667-7056
Fax: 610-667-7706
- and -
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Representing the defendants is:
Robert Badal, Esq. (robert.badal@hellerehrman.com)
Heller Ehrman LLP
333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043
Phone: 213-689-0200
Fax: 213-614-1868
U.S. LENDERS: Sued Over Alleged Predatory Lending Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Reno-based lawyer is seeking class-action status for several
U.S. District Court lawsuits alleging predatory practices by
major lenders that have left his clients facing foreclosures and
threatened sales of their homes, San Jose Mercury News reports.
Bob Hager, Esq., told San Jose Mercury News that the clients
include his law partner, Treva Hearne, Esq., who is battling
with Countrywide Financial representatives who moved ahead with
foreclosure proceedings on three properties she owns even though
she was current on all mortgage payments.
According to the report, besides Countrywide, the lawsuits filed
in federal court in Reno name Washington Mutual Home Loans,
Impact Finance Group, Southern Pacific Mortgage Co., GRP
Financial Services Corp. and IndyMac Bank. Mr. Hager said he
also represents borrowers "victimized" by Wells Fargo.
Mr. Hager further shared with San Jose Mercury that he wants to
combine all the cases, and as part of the litigation, wants to
challenge a settlement recently announced by Bank of America,
which has acquired Countrywide and faces a lawsuit over alleged
deceptive mortgage practices.
The settlement, which according to preliminary Countrywide
estimates could benefit more than 11,000 Nevadans, has many
troubling aspects and basically amounts to "Countrywide
promising to be a kinder, gentler predatory lender and the state
agreeing to it," Mr. Hager said. "It's a framework for the
future resolution of those loans that are underperforming, but
it does not deal at all in an equitable fashion with those
victimized already by Countrywide," he added.
In addition to injunctions to stop the threatened foreclosures
of their homes, Mr. Hager's clients are asking for unspecified
damages that he said could run into "millions of dollars" if the
litigation is successful.
The report notes that, according to the preliminary Countrywide
figures, the Nevada settlement could benefit borrowers with an
unpaid mortgage balance of about $2.6 billion. Of those 11,000-
plus Nevada borrowers, nearly 10,400 are eligible for loan
modifications.
The changes would include $219 million in total mortgage amount
reductions for Nevada, including $70 million in principal write-
downs and the rest in reduced interest, the report relates. The
goal would be to revise payments so they don't exceed 34% of
income, and to ensure borrowers don't wind up actually losing
equity. Also, nearly $2.2 million in total prepayment penalties
would be waived, along with another $2.3 million in delinquency
fees, under the program that Bank of America plans to launch in
December.
About 800 other borrowers who have already been foreclosed upon
may be eligible for some restitution, San Jose Mercury says.
This includes a "cash-for-keys" program, with Nevada estimated
to account for about $4.8 million in funds set aside for that
purpose.
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Holdings Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's Aug. 19, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2008.
On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class-action claims
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
officers. The various complaints specify different class
periods, with the longest proposed class period being Aug. 31,
2006, through Dec. 3, 2007.
The lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption "In re
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-6140
MHP."
On March 17, 2008, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and
in May 2008, the court requested additional briefing on these
matters, which was submitted in June 2008.
Each of the consolidated actions allege, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on
allegations that the company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the company's
business and operations during the putative class periods, and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The suit is "In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-6140 MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H.
Patel, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
Girard Gibbs LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-981-4800
Fax: 415-981-4846
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
(frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
Johnson Bottini, LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-230-0063
Fax: 619-233-5535
- and -
Eli Greenstein, Esq. (Elig@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Gellar Rudman & Robbins LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-288-4545
Fax: 415-288-4534
Representing the defendants is:
Michael Howard Steinberg, Esq.
(steinbergm@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan & Cromwell
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-712-6600
Fax: 310-712-8800
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholders' Class Lawsuit in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Holdings, Inc., is facing a purported stockholders'
class-action lawsuit in Tel-Aviv, Israel, over the publication
of erroneous financial reports, according to the company's
Aug. 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2008.
On Jan. 27, 2008, a class-action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages
allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the
publication of erroneous financial reports.
On May 25, 2008, the court held a hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings, after which the court
requested that the plaintiff and the company submit additional
information to the Court with respect to the applicability of
Israeli law to dually registered companies. This additional
information was submitted to the court in June 2008 and the
parties currently awaiting the court's ruling on this issue.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is a
global provider of technology that enables electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point of sale. The
company's system solutions consist of point of sale electronic
payment devices that run the company's and third-party operating
systems, security and encryption software and certified payment
software, as well as third party, value-added applications.
VeriFone Holdings' system solutions process a range of payment
types, including signature and PIN-based (personal
identification number) debit cards, credit cards,
contactless/radio frequency identification, cards, smart cards,
pre-paid gift and other stored-value cards, electronic bill
payment, check authorization and conversion, signature capture
and electronic benefits transfer. The company's electronic
payment systems are available in several distinctive modular
configurations, offering customers flexibility to support a
variety of connectivity options.
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Fla. Court Mulls Motions in Workers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida, has yet to rule
on certain motions submitted by Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., in
connection with a purported class-action lawsuit filed against
the company by several current and former employees.
In December 2007, 26 current and former employees filed a
putative class-action complaint before the Circuit Court for
Brevard County, Florida, against Winn-Dixie. The lawsuit is
alleging company-wide systemic age discrimination under the
Florida Civil Rights Act with respect to the terms and
conditions of their employment and that of others who were
similarly-situated.
The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit and has
answered the complaint and filed motions asserting various
defenses to the claims. It has removed the case to the
bankruptcy court on the ground that the action is, either
partially or in its entirety, barred by the company's Plan of
Reorganization.
The company has also filed an adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy court against the current and former employees as
well as their counsel regarding claims barred by the Plan of
Reorganization. Discovery in the bankruptcy court is underway.
The company's state court motions are pending.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 25, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2008.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is a
food retailer operating primarily under the Winn-Dixie banner.
As of June 25, 2008, the company operated 521 stores in five
states in the southeastern U.S. The company generates revenues
and cash as it sells products to customers in its stores. On
Nov. 21, 2006, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and 23 of its then-
existing subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy protection.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *